Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 4, 2011 7:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

I had to post this, cuz P-Blue just posted about 3/14/81, and it just so happened that I had a Great Insight (LOL) recently while listening to ... the night before! 3/13/81!

Here's the thing that struck me. You hear the first few notes of Jack-a-Roe, and then, as the crowd recognizes it:

CHEERS! HOWLS! CHEERS!

Because Jerry is about to launch into ...

"There was a wealthy merchant,
In London he did dwell ..."

MORE CHEERS! MORE HOWLS! IN LONDON HE DID DWELL! WOO HOO!

Folks were cheering wildly for an old folk song in 18th century English.

As they should, of course. Because Jack-a-Roe is great. But ... it's not Deep Insightful Reflective Meaningfulness about What the Songwriter Suffered While Breaking Up with his Girlfriend Over Breakfast in Angsty Suburbia. It wasn't even written by the band.

So I wondered: To what extent have other jam bands, if any, recognized the Jack-a-Roe Principle? I mean, really. "In London he did dwell?" Who'd do THAT anymore?

To me, part of the greatness of the GD (and something that bands like Phish definitely don't seem to get, not that I'm an expert on Phish at all!) was that the GD weren't just the band of Cassidy and Eyes and wonderful sparkling jams, but Jack-a-Roe and Peggy-O and CRS and Minglewood. And IMO one sign of tiredness and/or impending decline was when they lost touch with that connection to musical roots and the exploration of lesser-known folk music and started to cover the Beatles and Traffic and so on.

Which begs another question: What was the deal with that, anyway? Was it that the folk music came from Jerry and he was too zoned out to care anymore, so someone else or others were suggesting the rock covers?

Anyway, just some wordy Monday night ramblings! And, btw, it's really a wonderful Jack-a-Roe :-)

http://www.archive.org/details/gd1981-03-13.nak700.wagner.miller.90455.sbeok.flac16



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 4, 2011 9:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Ok, you got me to switch abruptly from '66 to '81, but no regrets. I was going to just listen to the Jack-a-Roe but accidentally clicked on the El Paso right before it, and this show seems pretty wild. Jerry's soloing furiously in El Paso ... the crowd seems extremely pumped, I wonder if maybe the cheering at the beginning of Jack-a-Roe is for some reason that is undeciperable from the tape?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 4, 2011 9:21am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

I think they're pumped in general, and then they recognize Jack-a-Roe and are even more pumped cuz it's not one you get every day, and isn't it always good? But maybe that's me projecting.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 4, 2011 9:46am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

It's funny I've been thinking about this song lately. The conventions of these old ballads are interesting, like the rhetorical "The truth to you I'll tell ..." (sorry English major geeky stuff).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 4, 2011 10:01am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

That song could appear on "Yoda Sings the Classics" from Ronco.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 4, 2011 9:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Indeed. Insightful you are! On Yoda sings the classics it could appear!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 5, 2011 6:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Insightful are you, indeed...appear it could; mirrrumph, myruph, yes...classics.

Mine or I help you not.

"Methinks" is right up his alley...and this is just too easy to feel quite comfortable with it all. I asked kids about LawofArab, and none had seen it (class of 20 somethings). Much less DrStrgeLv....I think I will assign them for biological homework.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 5, 2011 6:58am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Lets not get started on the whole "methinks" thing again.

As for Strangelove, that should be required viewing for any student of recent American (or even World) History. Incredible social commentary on the times.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 4, 2011 9:36am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

No, you're not projecting, or else I am too.
It's vocally lovely too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 4, 2011 8:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Tired, fat and all about the Benjamins.

After living through what he did, who can blame Jer for easing up a bit and relying on other peoples' songs that he knew crowds would eat up immediately. I just can't see the Dead whipping out a 14th century Scottish ballad for the first time in front of a 100,000 arena crowd in the 90's. As the crowds grew and the average age went down, it made perfectly good sense from a marketing standpoint to play "hits" vs. trying to get the crowds' acceptance for obscure songs.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: lobster12 Date: Apr 4, 2011 11:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Not sure I would go with that 100% If you look at 1985 there are some crazy covers that many folks didn't know. Also in later years when the age of the deadhead dipped they played songs like Matilda, That would be something and Rollin and Tumblin.Not exactly hits. With that said, I'm not sure that those tunes were played because they really loved them, I think they were easy and had 1 maybe 2 verses for the big guy to remember. Even with that ease, Jer couldn't confidently sing Matilda at that Charlotte show in 1995.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Apr 4, 2011 8:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Agree - pulling out Silver Threads & Golden Needles or Swing Low Sweet Chariot ain't going to cut it in front of a stadium crowd. As you noted AR, on most of those retread covers, the rubber was wearing mighty thin.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 4, 2011 8:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

>ain't going to cut it in front of a stadium crowd.

OK, but why? I didn't see many shows post-85, and only one was in a stadium (though the rest were in big arenas). Still, golly gee, it woulda cut it with ME :-) And maybe I was being dim, but I didn't notice a really huge difference (other than hugeness) in the crowds. Still seemed like Deadheads to me. Maybe selective attention, cuz everyone else talks about drunk frat boys, but ... do you really think the crowds were THAT different?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 4, 2011 8:44am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

From what I saw early 80's through mid 90's, the crowds gathered had more and more of a commercial vibe to them. Not all, but a growing number. While I was in school we referred to one of these groups as FratHeads. Initially brought in by the promise of easy drugs and scantily clad over-medicated women, this number seemed to grow exponentially after Touch of Grey. Now I'd have to say this did not consitute a majority by any matter of means, but this was the group who were buying the albums in the greatest numbers. So, in order to keep the cash flow going, aiming the music at these folks seemed almost inevitable.

Again, this is purely my own option. Don't have hard facts to back it up with, just personal experience.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 4, 2011 2:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Bingo!

Excellent description of what I thought the "scene" was transforming to as I bailed ~ 82...other aspects too (shear size, etc.) but commercialization (the whole parking lot scene with vendors, etc., etc., seemed so out of place to me, and yet many latter day heads almost feel that they didn't "need" to go "in", and that the scene was "it" for them...if that makes sense).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Cliff Hucker Date: Apr 4, 2011 4:03pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

There was no reason to go in William Tell...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 5, 2011 6:09am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

That WAS good...what a setup.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 5, 2011 4:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

LOL. You're all cracking me up this morning

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: staggerleib Date: Apr 5, 2011 6:35pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

My friends and I called them TOG heads (Touch of Grey). it just wasn't the same. But still, there was just enough of the same vibe that kept us interested. I jumped off the bus in 92, at Soldier Field. Vowed to see any JGB show I could, but no more Dead shows. Just too damned big. I'm one of the few that thought Vinnie could add to the scene. Unfortunately, it simply wasn't to be. I did see them in '94 at Soldier Field, cause I hadn't seen Traffic live before, and didn't see the '95 shows.

Perils of living in Chicago.

Nothing will ever live up to the Uptown Theatre and the Alpine Valley shows for me, though.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 6, 2011 8:40am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

>Nothing will ever live up to the Uptown Theatre and the Alpine Valley shows for me, though.

That's for sure!

The only shows I saw post-85 were all in Colorado. Maybe Colorado just has a nice vibe whether a show is full of FratHeads or TOGHeads or whatever ... a stadium in Chicago does sound pretty grim.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: staggerleib Date: Apr 6, 2011 9:01am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

I did get a chance to see two Red Rocks shows, and they were both amazing. What an amazing venue!

Winters in Chicago can be so very daunting, no doubt, and believe me, the Rosemont Horizon shows, too early in the spring, or to late in the fall were not the best parking lot experiences, to be sure. For that matter, the Horizon wasn't a great venue regardless. Simply awful sound.

However, the Uptown was a beautiful theatre in the gothic style. The sound was wonderful, the band loved that old place, and it was so small and intimate.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 6, 2011 9:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Favorite venue? Probably Red Rocks, but I never had a chance to see them in one of the theaters. Saratoga Springs is a close second.

Worst venue? Old Boston Garden or Sullivan Stadium

Best parking lot scene? Loved Oxford Plains. Absolutely no security that I recall and immense amounts of room.

Worst parking lot scene? Boston Garden. There was no parking lot. Similar thing w/ MSG. Desert Sky Pavilion also kind of sucked. Well, maybe because the only two shows I saw there (my last) left me with a very bad feeling.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: staggerleib Date: Apr 6, 2011 9:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

The parking lot at Soldier field was quite unpleasant. Certainly later in the game, so that the crowd was not the kind of easy going people I loved in the early days. The TogHeads were by then the majority. It was asphalt, and it was cedit card swiping devices. But at least, there was room. I could, and did, ride my bike to the show. That was a wonderful thing.

Once again, I have to say that the parking lot, though, at the Rosemont Horizon, in the shadows of O'Hare Airport were witout a doubt the worst. With too much cold, and too much attitude, but even worse, the jets flying over every few minutes, extremely unpleasant.

This post was modified by staggerleib on 2011-04-06 16:52:08

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 6, 2011 10:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Your recollection of riding your bike to a show reminds me I should put an asterisk next to the Boston Garden comment. The ability to take the T from my front door to the Garden made the show the easiest to get to and get from that I ever went to. That and the proximity to some outstanding Italian restaurants in the North End also weighed heavily in its overall appeal.

This post was modified by SomeDarkHollow on 2011-04-06 17:14:03

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: staggerleib Date: Apr 6, 2011 10:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

That's true, I love those north end Italian restaurants. I was just there a couple of months ago, and had a fantastic meal with friends in one of these that felt like the extension of an Italian family's kitchen. Wonderful!

I used to ride the El to the Uptown, back when I was in high school. So many great memories. I think that I've relayed the story of when Jerry was in the Limo after one show, and offered me a ride around the block with a "Chat."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 4, 2011 8:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Yeah, I guess. Maybe that's why I like Jerry with Grisman better at that stage. Still, woulda loved to have seen them doing, say, this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hISAeECFCmU&;feature=related

(I don't think it's a rehearsal of the song per se, btw. Just messing around.)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: SomeDarkHollow Date: Apr 4, 2011 8:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Seem Jerr might have agreed with you. IMO he seemed much happier and at ease during the Grateful Dawg sessions than he ever was with the 90's Dead. No pressure from record labels or promoters or massive stadium crowds looking to be entertained by their deity. Just music for music's sake.

Of course, I could be dead wrong, but that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezHGR5N7tCE

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Apr 4, 2011 8:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

I agree w/ your point AR. They had so much more of a rich canon of roots music to draw on as well. It couldn't but help energize them (is that is the function).
I also also agree w/ the first line of SDH's first post.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: madmonkmcphee Date: Apr 4, 2011 6:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

I'd just like to add that it seems as if those older folk songs that GD covered were rewritten for the band and sound more like an original song than rock 'n roll covers they played. Gimme a rockin Chuck Berry cover though, I'll dance my ass off. Songs like CR@S, INYR, NMB, S@D, Jack-a-roe, GDTRFB etc. sound more like GD originals than any other covers they did. Thanks for the show recommendation AR!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 5, 2011 4:49am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

I agree - those are definitely songs that they "own" no matter who wrote them.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 4, 2011 9:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

That's a good point -- that when they did the rock standards, they stuck more to the usual version. Or maybe it's just too hard to hear what they added. When you know a riff or identify a tune strongly with another artist and have heard it a zillion times, well, it's hard to hear past your expectations or that identification. I'll get sucked into a Mr Fantasy -- I mean, they're good musicians, duh -- but it never becomes a GD song for me. It's the GD taking a break and pretending to be Traffic. Which can be fun, but, well ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: madmonkmcphee Date: Apr 5, 2011 12:06am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

The structure of most the rock standards they cover stay true to the original, probably because it already had electric guitars and a drum kit. Them old folk tunes had to be converted to a rock n roll band, so my guess is that is why they sound, to me, more like GD originals. Speaking of covers, I just listened to 8/27/72's promised land while driving and just about lost it!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Apr 5, 2011 1:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Watch out about Deading and Driving!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 5, 2011 4:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Or Let's Spend the Night Together" - Jerry's version is very nice, but I still mentally supply Mick Jagger's verbal flourishes wherever Jerry leaves them out.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Apr 5, 2011 10:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Funny you mention that. This very morning i was listening to Let's Spend the Night Together from a 1975 Jerry/Nicky show and found myself doing the very same thing!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Apr 5, 2011 11:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

...you were also puckering-up, hands on hips, looking side to side and chicken-necking. Right? I mean, if not, what's the point?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Apr 5, 2011 11:14am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Generally i save those moves for when we get together, however in this case i couldn't help myself. Quite a site seeing me walk two dogs while doing my best Mick impersonation. If it weren't too chilly this morning (42 and windy, this is Atlanta in April!!) i might have even gone without the shirt! I think thats when it goes from amusing to disturbing.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 5, 2011 11:03am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Yeah, you just can't not, if you've heard Mick sing it 40000 times versus Jerry a few times.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 5, 2011 6:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Speaking of such, have you ever realized how many "uh huh un" s there are even in the studio version of BIODTL?

I always thought Bob had the few extra syl's thing down over any scat/blues/etc sort...not that his "meant" anything, but there are a lot more sounds coming out than just the words.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 5, 2011 7:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Yeah. That's one of the things Bob can do really well. Speaking of which (things Bob does well, weren't we speaking of things Bob does well? LOL), vocal harmonizing is one of them, he's better than Jerry. Probably Jerry can do it well but often he didn't bother. Vocally Jerry just sort of adds stuff, and everyone loves it 'cus it's Jerry. Bob usually adds exactly the *right* stuff. Yes, I know there are exceptions, places Bob is out of control, but in general it is a skill Bob specifically developed that Jerry did not, IMO.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 5, 2011 7:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Yes, during 70, with the two studio efforts of immense fame (mark TWO down for us early era fans, please), clearly Phil and Boob did a great job, all three of them in fact, in getting the most out of what they were capable of...no one can say they didn't shine on #s like Attics, etc.

Phil apparently didn't have the "control" live, so yes, you can mark us EETypes down 1/2 for how off key Phil could be in an Eleven, or what have you, but studio shows they had it if they worked at it.

There, I think that unequi-VOCALLY settles it: EEra wins!

;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 5, 2011 8:13am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

>Yes, during 70, with the two studio efforts of immense fame (mark TWO down for us early era fans, please),

Yes, those are admittedly worth pretty big points :)

>Phil apparently didn't have the "control" live, so yes, you can mark us EETypes down 1/2 for how off key Phil could be in an Eleven, or what have you, but studio shows they had it if they worked at it.

True, although I also feel like the studio efforts (in that regard; the vocal harmonizing) are so strenuous that they're just not true to life - you actually really can't tell who is singing sometimes, at least on AB. (Or I can't, anyway). Phil is hardly Phil, I still can't figure out how he did that.

>There, I think that unequi-VOCALLY settles it: EEra wins!

Wait, I think your scoring system is a little skewed there ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: elbow1126 Date: Apr 5, 2011 10:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

You get the feeling that he could have made the exact opposite conclusions yet the bottom line would have still been the same.... Gooooooooo EEra!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 5, 2011 11:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Yeah. There was rather a wild leap of logic there.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 4, 2011 12:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

This is a fantastic show

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: polarized blue Date: Apr 4, 2011 2:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

It's a very good show from a good year. I do love Jack A Roe and all the folk songs. I have always liked all kinds of music, my dad was a little bit more country and my mom was a little more rock and roll, so I heard a good variety of that kind of stuff growing up, watched Hee-Haw, etc. When the Grateful Dead started getting into my mind, I was loving all their interpretations of the old folk songs, country and western, and Jerry's bluegrass playing on the electric guitar. And the more I heard and dug a little deeper, it brought me to look for my own full circle back to the origins of lots of these songs and genres.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 5, 2011 4:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Yikes, Hee Haw, haven't thought of that show in years.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: polarized blue Date: Apr 5, 2011 6:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

This winter I played in a panto in the village amateur dramatics club and I had to sing "The Great Pretender", they wanted me to do the Queen version, but I can't touch Freddie Mercury (not that I'd WANT to!!!), anyhow, I started looking on youtube for other versions, finally I settled on the original Platters version. Along the way, I discovered that Roy Clark had done a version in the early 60's. Very entertaining, well he's brilliant.

I also thought about Hee Haw last year because my cousin went to see John Prine at the Ryman Auditorium. He told me that he loved the show.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ringolevio Date: Apr 5, 2011 7:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: In London He Did Dwell: 3/13/81

Funny!